Profit & Sustainability Rules

I’ve posted the same article to the Iraola thread obviously, but this snippet I thought was interesting to have, sort of, confirmed.

https://twitter.com/x/status/2031403379918856620

Bournemouth’s summer plans​

The i Paper understands Bournemouth’s squad cost ratio is now around 80 per cent, which gives them leverage to invest without selling in the summer. Although Marcos Senesi will leave in the summer, and there are release clauses in the contracts of several other stars, another close season of departures is not expected.
 
bremen said:
Wasn’t too concerned about Real Madrid and Barcelona all these years were they? Oh and 115?
Click to expand...
I believe that the 115 is referencing the fact that you are allowed to spend above that 85% all the way up to 115% but will receive a fine for this depending on how far over the 85 you are. Don’t know how this works for the clubs playing in Europe though as they have their own SCR limit you have to meet to play in their competitions and I’m pretty sure that it’s not as high as 115%!
 
DJ said:
https://twitter.com/x/status/2031302289638461639
Click to expand...

I can't say I've ever really understood these rules much but it's always been said that the new rules make it harder for smaller PL clubs and will reinforce the big boys' stranglehold on the division. That article suggests that the PL rules being less strict than the UEFA rules might give an advantage to the non-European qualified PL teams. Obviously once they qualify for Europe they have to comply with the stricter UEFA rules so will if not encourage clubs to gamble on getting into Europe?
 
I think that's the theory. Clubs in Europe have access to more money by dint of all the European prize money, gate receipts from a bunch of extra matches plus extra sponsorship income. The argument would be that a club not in Europe with a spending cap of 85% of their income would be closer to an even footing with a club who have to adhere to 70% of PL + European money.

Arguably, if a club did then qualify then, as long as they didn't go on a spending spree, there's a decent chance the extra European money would drop that 85% from the season they qualified to something closer to the 70% for the year they play in Europe.

The issue arises because, naturally, they'll need to spend to build a stronger squad to compete in more competitions.
 
One thing I've not my head around is that the PSR rules apply only to the first team and manger.

So the trick is to buy a u21 player on a two year contract that extends after a first team performance and have him in your u21s (or on loan - possibly to a co-owned club) for a season. Amortise half their transfer fee off the books and then spread the other half over the extended contract.

Even if you sell them after the first year for the purchase price you've doubled your "on the books" money.
 
kirsikka said:
I think that's the theory. Clubs in Europe have access to more money by dint of all the European prize money, gate receipts from a bunch of extra matches plus extra sponsorship income. The argument would be that a club not in Europe with a spending cap of 85% of their income would be closer to an even footing with a club who have to adhere to 70% of PL + European money.

Arguably, if a club did then qualify then, as long as they didn't go on a spending spree, there's a decent chance the extra European money would drop that 85% from the season they qualified to something closer to the 70% for the year they play in Europe.

The issue arises because, naturally, they'll need to spend to build a stronger squad to compete in more competitions.
Click to expand...

Champions League may well be the case, but the money drops significantly across the Europa and Conference.
 
Kudos said:
One thing I've not my head around is that the PSR rules apply only to the first team and manger.

So the trick is to buy a u21 player on a two year contract that extends after a first team performance and have him in your u21s (or on loan - possibly to a co-owned club) for a season. Amortise half their transfer fee off the books and then spread the other half over the extended contract.

Even if you sell them after the first year for the purchase price you've doubled your "on the books" money.
Click to expand...

You work as an accountant for Chelsea and I claim my £5.
 
SlowDownDerek said:
I can't say I've ever really understood these rules much but it's always been said that the new rules make it harder for smaller PL clubs and will reinforce the big boys' stranglehold on the division. That article suggests that the PL rules being less strict than the UEFA rules might give an advantage to the non-European qualified PL teams. Obviously once they qualify for Europe they have to comply with the stricter UEFA rules so will if not encourage clubs to gamble on getting into Europe?
Click to expand...

Wonder why European teams don't increase it if they're so upset about being left behind to the Prem.

But yeah, these rules are generally a shambles.
 
DJ said:
Champions League may well be the case, but the money drops significantly across the Europa and Conference.
Click to expand...

Depends on the club. It may not move the dial all that much if you've got the footballing costs of Man Utd, but if your football spend is outside the Sky Six then it could be a big help.

Let's say our revenue is £200m in a season that we finish 7th and qualify for the Europa League. We spent 85% of that, giving us footballing costs of £170m.

The next season in the Europa League, we do pretty well. If you go deep in the Europa League, the prize money alone would be £30m+ - Spurs got £45m for winning it and Man Utd £36m for being runners up last year. And that's before the other additional income streams.

70% of £230m is £161m.

Add in the additional matchday revenue, sponsorships etc and you're in about the right ballpark. It isn't an exact bullet but it can bring in much closer.

However, spend and you have a problem, and teams that qualify for Europe always need to spend.
 
kirsikka said:
Depends on the club. It may not move the dial all that much if you've got the footballing costs of Man Utd, but if your football spend is outside the Sky Six then it could be a big help.

Let's say our revenue is £200m in a season that we finish 7th and qualify for the Europa League. We spent 85% of that, giving us footballing costs of £170m.

The next season in the Europa League, we do pretty well. If you go deep in the Europa League, the prize money alone would be £30m+ - Spurs got £45m for winning it and Man Utd £36m for being runners up last year. And that's before the other additional income streams.

70% of £230m is £161m.

Add in the additional matchday revenue, sponsorships etc and you're in about the right ballpark. It isn't an exact bullet but it can bring in much closer.

However, spend and you have a problem, and teams that qualify for Europe always need to spend.
Click to expand...

It almost always comes at the detriment of Premier League positions as well. I won’t go back down that particular rabbit hole again mind…
 
Sorry Roger said:
You work as an accountant for Chelsea and I claim my £5.
Click to expand...

Ha! That's a really good point. Chelsea could effectively "launder" SCR money through Strasburg and financially dope Strasburg in the process.

BlueCo pump £20M into Chelsea, Chelsea buy a Strasburg youth player for £20M on three year contract, a season later Strasburg buy him back for £17M.

Approximate numbers but Chelsea record a £3M accounting profit and Strasburg get a bonus £3M of football income.

There's supposedly clauses to manage this but they sound very subjective "fair market value" and "netting off" (multi club manipulation). I can see clubs being pulled up for it but only after the event additional rules getting drawn up like the nonsense with hotels and women's teams. Both of which can now be purchased back under the new SCR rules with no penalty.

A couple of seasons ago Chelsea were being called a basket case but to be fair they've been taking the powers that be for a ride. You can't blame them for seeking a competitive edge.

You want to see clubs competing on the pitch rather than the courtroom but if introduce convoluted rules then you're inviting lawyers.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

;